“Two sides of the same coin?” Coaching and mentoring and the agentic role of context

Abstract

Our article depicts and interrogates the claims for seeing coaching and mentoring as being distinct from each other, and rather suggests that context is agentic in determining which aspects of these two helping orientations are likely to be used by practitioners. To start with, our article traces the development of coaching and mentoring as two separate discourses. Traditionally, coaching has been associated with a shorter term performance focus, with the coach portrayed as a process‐ rather than a content knowledge−based expert. By contrast, mentoring has a longer‐term holistic focus, where the mentor has direct experience and knowledge in the setting that the mentee is operating in. Then, we discuss some limitations of seeking conceptual distinctiveness in purely theoretical terms, including accentuating differences of practices that cannot easily be disentangled from each other in practice. Therefore, on the basis of a case study, where coaching and mentoring behaviors are used by leaders and managers, we argue that context plays an agentic role and influences which of the helping orientations is used by practitioners. We conclude that, context being multifaceted, it leads to a kaleidoscope of coaching/mentoring behaviors, which supports a practice‐based approach to the debate.

Entrepreneurial Coaching: A Two‐Dimensional Framework in Context

“…Moreover, we suggest that future research might further explore contextual factors, taking our two‐dimensional framework as a useful starting point. Recent research indicates that the choice of coaching and mentoring behaviors is context‐sensitive (Stokes et al, 2020). Accordingly, the contextual peculiarities of specific subgroups of entrepreneurs (e.g.…”

“…Expert‐consultation is characterized by a consultant possessing a high level of content expertise and providing expert information, advice, and solutions to clients. Process‐consultation, conversely, considers clients as experts in their own realities and environments and it enables them, by means of the consultant’s process expertise in facilitating conversations, to find their own solutions (Schein, 1990; Stokes, Fatien Diochon, & Otter, 2020). The second dimension (individual‐work‐venture focus) concerns the focus of the developmental intervention, that is, whether there is a focus on the individual (e.g.…”

Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices

“…79,80 The roles often overlap and cannot always be disentangled. 81 The existence of multiple ill-defined mentor roles is problematic in that it can exacerbate or even lead to unclear expectations about the mentoring. Unclear or competing expectations can lessen the effectiveness of mentoring and cause participants to give up on the mentoring.…”

“…[82][83][84] Effective mentoring relies on mentors and mentees having clear ideas about what mentoring entails, how it is distinct from other support measures, and what expectations for a given mentoring experience are realistic. 65,81,10 All stakeholders need to understand that mentoring is relational and developmental, has instrumental (e.g., careeroriented) and psychosocial functions, and includes phases and transitions in which mentoring roles will change. 6,65 The aforementioned examples of mentor roles will apply differently during different phases of mentoring.…”

“…These can include, for example, those of guide, advisor, teacher, coach, role model, sponsor, supporter, counselor, intellectual sparring partner, and even friend 79,80 . The roles often overlap and cannot always be disentangled 81 . The existence of multiple ill‐defined mentor roles is problematic in that it can exacerbate or even lead to unclear expectations about the mentoring.…”